Are you a 'tankie'

manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml to Asklemmy@lemmy.ml – 34 points –

edit: this is now closed future comments won't be counted

I keep seeing this instance is overrun with tankies so hey, lets do an informal survey like I've seen on hexbear

respond with YES or NO in the first line of your comment and i'll tally everything in a couple of days, lets say I'll try and collect everything on the sunday the 9th (10+gmt sorry)

not sure thisll work, be nice, have fun

293

Tankie is a floating signifier. If you ask twenty liberals what a tankie is you’ll get

  1. Twenty different answers, and
  2. Several people upset at being called a liberal because they don’t have even a Wikipedia-level understanding of liberalism or socialism.

100 percent agreed. They'll group anything too far left of them under the same name. Don't care anymore. If they want to whine then fuck it, I'll wear the term.

Great synopsis. I may have found a twenty first definition if you want!?:-P

img

no. I'm probably a communist but authoritarianism can fucking shove it

Fredrich Engels, 1872: On authority

Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is. It is the act by which one part of the population imposes its will on the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannons — by the most authoritarian means possible; and the victors, if they do not want to have fought in vain, must maintain this rule by means of the terror which their arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if the communards had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach them for not having used it enough?

Therefore, we must conclude one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are only sowing confusion; or they do know, in which case they are betraying the proletarian movement. In either case, they serve reaction.

How about, I don't know, establishing some sort of democracy? Just a crazy idea

Maybe capitalist states should do that, but they won’t because they’re capitalist states. They’ll form bourgeois democracies at best and fascism at worst[1][2][3].

You misunderstood me. I'm saying after the revolution. The Engels quote implies that because revolution is authoritarian, so is whatever system it implements. Which I disagree with

At what point does a leftist system become authoritarian? Where is the line? Is it just a vibe check, or is there a definitive metric we can check?

I mean that's a good question but there's no reason to apply it just to leftist governments

There is, for the purpose of this question.

You have separated "Authoritarians" from the rest of "Communists." At what point does Communism become authoritarian?

I'm framing this question in this manner to try to understand what you believe Communism should look like in a manner that goes against what people often described as tankies want it to look like.

The line is when the communist system collapses as usual and a dictatorship seizes power.

So Cuba, China, Vietnam, and the DPRK are by your definition not authoritarian, got it.

Does that make you a tankie?

I'm not from this instance, so probably not totally relevant to this poll, that said

NO, I'm not a tankie.

I think, however, it's worth considering that a lot of people that could be considered tankies probably wouldn't apply the term to themselves, and that could skew the results of your poll. First of all, tankie is sort of a pejorative term, and many wouldn't want to apply it to themselves for that reason alone. Secondly a lot of people just may not consider themselves to be a tankie, and genuinely do not recognize their own tankieness.

I don't think I'm the guy to come up with a definitive checklist of what does or does not make someone a tankie, but for the sake of getting the conversation going (and feel free to disagree with me here, I welcome the discussion) I think two of the biggest hallmarks of being a tankie are

  1. Communism- not all communists are tankies, but all tankies at least claim to subscribe to some sort of communist ideology.

  2. Authoritarianism- tankies either are authoritarians themselves, or are willing to support or overlook authoritarians as long as they see them as being in some way opposed to "the west"/capitalism/etc.

I think the authoritarianism aspect is going to trip some people up trying to answer this truthfully. A lot of authoritarians probably wouldn't consider themselves authoritarians, most people like to think they're standing for freedom, justice, liberty, equality, etc. even if their actual actions tell another story. Don't get me wrong, there are people out there who are openly authoritarian and proud of it, but a lot of authoritarians are a little brainwashed to the point they've lost sight of what they're actually supporting (take a look at the MAGA crowd, they think they're about free speech and anti-censorship but want to keep books they don't like out of libraries, they think they're about small government but want to regulate what kind of medical care you can get, they think they stand for law and order but also proudly proclaim that they are all domestic terrorists and have a convicted felon as their poster boy)

And politics are messy, full of moral grey areas and times where you have to choose between the lesser of two evils, make uncomfortable alliances, difficult choices, and kick some cans further down the road to deal with later while you tackle the current crisis. It's not always easy or feasible to draw a crisp line in the sand and say "we will not ally with/support/turn a blind eye to these authoritarian regimes," sometimes you have to play a little bit of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" game if you want to actually make any progress against that enemy, or you may have to prioritize and deal with something else before you deal with them. There is a whole lot of grey area to explore about when, why, how, how long, and how much you can support or ignore them before you're advancing their cause as much or more than your own.

I think there's probably some tankies who have been taken for a ride on the propaganda wagon and don't truly realize how authoritarian they are, and there's others who have justified it, thinking that they're only going to be/support authoritarians temporarily to achieve a specific goal and will pivot away from that later, but have gone too far or keep moving the goalposts.

Couple last thoughts from me.

There can always be bad actors who are falsely claiming to be (or not to be) tankies for their own purposes. Not really much you can do about that.

Personally, a lot of the criticism I've seen about tankies here has been directed towards the mods and admins, not necessarily the rank average users.

What's the definition of tankie ?

It originally meant someone who supported the USSR's intervention in the 1956 Hungarian revolution. Now it means whatever the labeler wants it to mean, usually as a means of punching left.

Dealers choice, no wait thats me, colour me surprised, it feels like one of those words that basically means whatever you want it to mean ay this point, answer the question bub ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

NO

Supporters of Lenin and/or China and/or Russia shall go in front of firing squad

beep beep beep

Salty takie calling others Nazi... Cope harder 😏

If you don't want to be called a nazi, simply don't have the same opinion of communists as adolf eichmann. it's that easy!

Lmao

If you are commie then you must love sending people to gulags, right ?

it's that easy!

1 more...
1 more...

Explained in this post to !nostupidquestions@lemmy.world.

Supposedly it is a pejorative label applied to authoritarian communists, particularly Marxist–Leninist socialists. I presume it is the "pejorative" part that people do not like, b/c many of the places labelled as tankies by others unabashedly do precisely that!

icon used on lemmygrad.ml

I've only used the term twice myself, both kinda self-questioning what it even means, but if it is truly pejorative, then I should stop regardless.

I wouldn't feel bad using a pejorative for fascists. Neither do I feel bad using a pejorative for other authoritarians. Their disrespect for human dignity, liberty, and worth disqualifies them for protection against such a minor indignity.

Tankies is fine for anyone on the side of the tanks at Tiananmen Square.

That's not even where the term originates. Come on, if you're going to use the term at least do the 10 second Google search.

As EchoCT said, do you even Wikipedia?

But since you brought it up:

Okay, I wasn’t going to respond to any of this, but all the bullshit sources you’re using proves my point exactly.

I wasn’t implying that tankies draw their name from Tiananman. I genuinely don’t give a fuck where it comes from. I was pointing out that they’re actually on the side of the tanks that literally crushed protestors.

If you’re going to quote wikipedia, it’s funny that you suddenly stop using it when it no longer suits you.

Wikipedia, BBC, NSA de-classified national archives, etc…

No one will argue that the death toll is this or that number, because no one knows.

There is no debate that it is a significant number, that hundreds or even thousands were murdered, and that China has desperately attempted to obfuscate every detail of these events.

The protestors called the soldiers fascists as they were killed. We could quibble over that terminology, but there can be no doubt that they were authoritarians willing to kill in order to suppress the natural desire in humans to be free and self-determining.

If you side with those soldiers then fuck you, tankie trash.

People who root for the tanks when pictures of tiananmen square are posted.

“The term ‘tankie’ was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defense of the Soviet use of tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions.”

See: Tankie - Wikipedia

1 more...

No.

That said most MLs are my comrades anyway left-unity-3

Also liberals still always call me a tankie anyway so idk it doesn't mean anything anymore.

Also no

I land somewhere on the anarcho side of politics, but I'm certainly not a tankie. Still get called one though.

A better world is possible and none of us can accurately predict how we will get there but if we don't quit rehashing hundred year old ideological beefs that occurred within very different material conditions we're all fucked anyway.

The tankies aren't gonna murder the anarchists and at this juncture there is no revolution to speak of for anarchists to have a hand in betraying (for reasons that I have never heard a compelling case for its inevitability). If we don't get our shit together the billionaires are gonna kill us all and who knows maybe it's already too late but we have to at least try.

We're all fighting for basically the same thing. Various flavours, but essentially the same. I personally wouldn't betray the revolution should it come.
1000% agree, we need to collectively get our shit together, get over the little differences between what our end goals are, that can be sorted out later, and anyone who isn't a fucking fascist would be willing to see other collectives have their own system and still work in harmony.

I wonder if part of it is that climate change might mean the death of modern human civilization, so could the slim hope of life as a slave seem more preferable than the greater certainty of death as a free agent?

I cannot fathom that, but then again that's why I am on the Fediverse rather than on Reddit. :-P

YES

They would have burned me as a heretic in the middle ages.

  • Carl Jung

Just like calling someone a "witch" or heretic in the middle ages, a "barbarian", or "savage", or "commie" or "pinko" in the 20th century, these terms are less about the actual meaning, and more about a demonization, scapegoating, or a power relation between the dominant class, and a group they seek to malign and rally their people around.

Creating a useful enemy promotes group bonding, unity, a sense of strengthened identity, and self worth.

"Tankie" had a meaning that generally referred to non-pacifist leftists (or those that agreed with using violence to defend socialist projects), but now it just means, "any leftist I don't like".

It functions in the exact same way that "commie" did in the the McCarthy era, as a xenophobic and western-supremacist scapegoating of socialist countries, and an internal purging of the working-class communist movement.

It's additionally useful because it deters people from reading or engaging with the worldwide communist / socialist movement.

If someone uses this term, this is what they're doing without realizing it:

now it just means, "any leftist I don't like".

With respect, there's a bit more to it than that.

The way political discussions are often policed on ML instances (This one, Lemmygrad, and Hexbear) is not conducive to helping new people see your point of view. If a, let's say, social democrat says something critical of the CCP and then is immediately censured or banned, they are going to be left with a very negative impression that feeds into the stereotypes that already exist about these instances.

Creating a useful enemy promotes group bonding, unity, a sense of strengthened identity, and self worth.

Aren't people on ML instances also doing the exact same thing when they shout down and decry the wretched "liberals" (which seems to refer to anyone left-of-centre who doesn't support communist party rule)? Whether it's "tankie" or "liberal", it only further entrenches the us vs them mindset.

It's a shame that leftist infighting exists to such a degree when we often share about 95% of the same views, compared to the general public.

The way political discussions are often policed on ML instances (This one, Lemmygrad, and Hexbear) is not conducive to helping new people see your point of view.

If you ask in earnest, you'll get good responses. A good number of people ask questions not to learn a different point of view, but to reinforce their own existing biases, which naturally becomes exhausting. Kind of like how POC get tired of justifying their existence to white supremacists, communists often for good reason get tired of trying to justify the existence of countries who choose to follow their own path, outside of the model of bourgeois democracy.

Aren’t people on ML instances also doing the exact same thing when they shout down and decry the wretched “liberals” (which seems to refer to anyone left-of-centre who doesn’t support communist party rule)? Whether it’s “tankie” or “liberal”, it only further entrenches the us vs them mindset.

Liberal, unlike tankie, has a fairly precise meaning in political discourse. It can be used too loosely IMO, but it generally means pro-capitalism, pro-individual freedom (including to exploit labor power to earn surplus value), pro free-market, pro-free speech (for all including reactionaries), pro wage-slavery, as well as specific limitations imposed on those considered outside of the "community of the free". Its important to realize that even the US mis-definition of liberal (as vaguely socially progressive) includes all of the above, and the internationally accepted definition of liberal, is right wing (for example, the right wing party in Australia is the liberal party). The best book I can recommend here, is Losurdo's Liberalism - A counter-history.

Not only that, but liberals rule most of the world, and especially most of the economies and governments of anglo-speaking countries, extracting a surplus from the sale of their labor power (who are mostly extremely poorly paid proletarians in the global south), and are responsible for most of the suffering of working-class people worldwide.

If you ask in earnest, you’ll get good responses. A good number of people ask questions not to learn a different point of view, but to reinforce their own existing biases, which naturally becomes exhausting.

That is understandable, however I was more talking about good-faith attempts to express views that are contrary to ML orthodoxy being dogpiled, removed, and banned. I have personal direct experience with this, as do many others who have attempted to engage in political discussions in ML communities. Perhaps users of the ML persuasion are used to being attacked and this why contrarian views are so heavily moderated on ML instances, but quite often this defensive response only leads to alienating other leftists who could be sympathetic to your point of view.

Also, I already understand quite well the differences between classical, social, and neo-liberalism, and how the term is used in the US; I have a degree in political science. My point was that users on ML instances weaponize the term in the same way that other users utilize the term "tankie" in order to dismiss people who disagree with them, ad hominem.

If you ask in earnest, you’ll get good responses.

This is not the case. Every time I've asked in earnest, I've faced mobs of lunatics.

1 more...
4 more...

"Tankie" in the traditional sense of someone who uncritically supports the USSR in the handling of 1956's uprising? Probably not.

While Kruschev's use of tanks in 1956 was heavy handed, the Hungarian alliance with the Axis in WWII and participation of Operation Barbarossa, lingering fascist sympathisers and nationalists remained in Hungary.

This coupled with the Communist Party of Hungary's less than equitable redistribution of land/castles/other properties earlier in the 1950's (favouring giving properties to ranking CPH members instead of distributing it to the proletariat equally). This created resentment for the Party, and an image of the Communists as no better than the Monarchy that came before or the Fascists that came after.

The Hungarian uprising had elements of fascist sympathisers, monarchists, bourgeoisie, etc but also legitimate critics of the handling of the situation. It never should have come to that, and a more educated/self critical Communist Party in Hungary could have prevented things from getting that far. The people should have benefitted a lot more from a better redistribution of wealth.

The above issues coupled with Soviet distrust of Hungarians (since they did invade the Soviet Union in the 40's) led to a swift and harsh reaction towards the uprising, seeing it as just a reactionary revolt.

Now, am I a tankie in the Reddit redefinition, of anyone that critically supports Cuba, China, Vietnam and their style of government? Yeah, I suppose I am. This is no more radical a position than Malcolm X or the Black Panthers who also supported the late USSR, China and Cuba.

Serious question, I mean I feel you dislike the "west" or jow it is governed (I guess) and to each their own but are you against democracy? And if so, how do you get rid of dictators like Putin if needed?

Cheers

Please find a Marxist against democracy. Your question is framed in an incorrect manner.

You have to imagine other people have no idea about Marxism but what they've heard from US propaganda. When they hear you support China, Cuba, and Vietnam, they just hear you supporting dictator for life Xi Jinping and one party state Cuba and Vietnam. You guys need better answers than this.

The other person's answer was pretty good, though.

My point is to get them to do some questioning on their own, and challenge the pretenses. Sometimes this approach works better as the other person comes to a new conclusion on their own.

Okay you don't want democracy, but how do you deal with dictators like putin always creeps into the system and takes over if you can't vote them out?

I do want Democracy. What are you talking about?

See your first post...

But dodge the question again lol

I asked you to find a Marxist against Democracy because that mythical anti-Democracy Marxist doesn't exist.

It isn't a dodge, it's like you asking veterinarians why they like screwing cats and dogs.

No. I'm a non-tendency leftist. But I disagree with tankies being labelled as "fascists". They're not. They're just Marxist-Leninists/Stalinists and I find their views pretty consistent with orthodox ML-ism.

I agree with this. I see a lot of people erroneously label tankies "fascist," but fascism is an entirely distinct ideology with different end goals.

I also wouldn't call myself a tankie, although I've received some nasty DMs calling me one, which is somewhat humorous to me since I identify most with anarchism. I feel like some people think a tankie is defined as "anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan."

NO

Tankie is a meaningless word. If you point out China has undeniably made progress under communism, you’re a tankie. If you point out Stalin wasn’t the evil dictator westerners make him out to be (even though it’s disproven by the literal CIA itself) you’re a tankie, if you think capitalism is causing problems in the USA you’re a tankie. If you criticise US or NATO foreign policy you’re a tankie. If you criticise the Republicans you’re a Tankie. If you criticise the Dems, guess what also a tankie. If you think that the USSR and the PRC are/were perfect little angels that never made any mistakes or did anything wrong ever then you’re also a Tankie.

It’s just too broad a term for me or anyone to identify with any way. It’s not an ideology. It’s a dumb insult to dismiss the opinions of others you disagree with without having to engage with their point at all or critically analyse your own beliefs in any meaningful way.

Organizing a union? Pushing for higher wages? Defending your people from reactionary aggression?

Not voting? Don't hate the US's main enemies, like Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Syria, Palestine, the DPRK?

Believe it or not, tankie.

Eat beans instead of meat for protein? No trial, no jury, straight to being a Tankie. Not eat a specific brand of beans I.e. Goya? Believe it or not also a Tankie. We have the best diets in the world.

4 more...

I wish stalin drove tanks straight into west berlin, then france, then the UK, then atlantis, then NYC, then chicago, then seattle, then anchorage, then Tokyo, then Seoul, then Beijing, then KFC/tacobell.

Sorry nerd, that was Trotsky that wanted that, and your boi put an icepick in his brain for being good at it.

Love Trotsky and hate how they did him after all he did for the revolution, but Trotskyists annoy the fuck out of me.

Yes, although I personally prefer "central planning enthusiast".

I think we're approaching the point where the word gets taken back by the community it was used to malign, if not there already. "

Yes.

The last time I smiled was on August 19th, 1991. I wear a dirty ushanka at all times, do not shave, and only take cold sponge baths because hot running water is bourgeoisie decadence. Every day at exactly noon I have the same meal of an expired Maoist MRE I store in a pit covered in old issues of a revolutionary newspaper. I sleep in a bed made of flags from every failed revolution so that they are never forgotten. In the evenings I stare at a picture of vodka by candlelight, but I do not allow myself to drink because there is nothing to celebrate. Every local org has banned me after I attempted to split it by assassinating the leadership. There is no plumbing in my house I shit in a brass bucket with a picture of Gonzalo and Deng french kissing in the bottom of it. My house is actually an overturned T34 in an abandoned junkyard in Wisconsin. I have a single friend in this world and it is a tapeworm named Bordiga that I met after ingesting spoiled borscht on 9/11 in the ruins of building 7 (I blew it up after finding that a nominally leftist NGO inside of it wasn’t sufficiently anti-imperialist, the attacks on the world trade center were a perfect revolutionary moment for me to enact direct praxis against liberalism). My source of income is various MLM schemes in the former soviet bloc that have been running for so long no one remembers who I am, they just keep sending money. I have not paid taxes since McGovern lost the Democratic nomination for president and my faith in electoralism died more brutally than my childhood dog after it got into an entire jar of tylenol. I own 29 fully automatic rusted kalashnikovs and three crates of ammunition entirely incompatible with them or any other firearms I own. My double PHD in marxist economics and 18th century Swiss philosophy (required to understand Engels) sits over the fireplace of my home, my fireplace is a salvaged drum from a 1950s washing machine that was recalled for locking children inside of it. I chose that washing machine model on purpose because I am anti-natalist. During the latest BLM protests I firebombed a Nikes outlet in the middle of a peaceful candlelit vigil. William F Buckley and I wrote hatemail to one another for 47 years until my final letter gave him an aneurysm. The only water I drink is from puddles. George Lucas and I dropped acid together during an MKULTRA southern baptist summer camp and he went on to write the movie Willow about our time together. The best way to test whether an electrical wire is live is to drool on it and shrimp salad is racist. You can make an IED out of potassium and the instructions are online thanks to Timothy McVey, who was actually a committed antifascist communist slandered by the deep state as part of operation condor. Every time a liberal files a restraining order against me, I carve a mark into the wall. I am running out of walls. When Amerika finally collapses I will be ready to lead the revolution. I am very smart and people like being around me.

The only part of this I cannot parse is "shrimp salad is racist" that's the only thing I don't get the reference for and it always drives me nuts.

YES

Everybody to the left of biden is considered a tankie nowdays, and I'm proud of being to the left of (and opposed to) genocide enablers.

Not so. There are many progressives who stand with Marxists on issues like social justice, LGBTQ issues, and Palestine but who do not feel welcome on instances like Hexbear because they also criticize the CCP.

And they sometimes get called "tankies" too by people to the right of them. That's why I both think it's a useless term (if everybody is a tankie, then nobody is) and why I think I fall in the definition (as most leftists do, I've seen pretty mild social democrats being called "tankies" by liberals)

Plus ultimately these blanket descriptions are pretty useless IMO, you'll find extremely heated debates between "tankies" themselves on many topics, there's no consensus, and there are many different ideologies "tankies" subscribe to. It would be like saying that Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Greens are all the same thing. We could call them "dronies" maybe.

Oh, I agree - calling people Tankies/Liberals/Dronies, especially ad hominem, is reductive and generally unhelpful.

Liberal is a term for a real ideology, Tankie is not.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

ML people often tend not to apply 'liberal' correctly either, so it goes both ways.

Actually we do tend to apply “liberal” correctly.

It is liberals themselves who tend to not have even a Wikipedia-level understanding of liberalism—their own ideology!—or of socialism. And that’s how a centrist liberal like Bernie Sanders can get away with calling himself a socialist despite never calling for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, because Burgerlanders don’t know their asses from their elbows politically thanks to over a century of red scares and cold wars, which are still ongoing[1][2].

Hang on, so you're telling me you guys lump social liberals in with classical liberals and neoliberals? That's definitely not common, but then I suppose if you're a communist then it kinda makes sense.

Also, while I wouldn't call Sanders a socialist either, he is not a centrist by any standard measure. I presume you don't consider anyone a leftist if they don't advocate for collective ownership and a centrally planned economy?

Hang on, so you’re telling me you guys use ‘liberal’ to encapsulate everything from Bernie Sanders to George W Bush?

If you’re going to double down on not reading the Wikipedia entries for liberalism or socialism, I’m not sure what to tell you.

Yes, Sanders, both Bushes, and Reagan are/were all liberals. Off the top of my head I don’t recall the US ever having had a president who wasn’t a liberal. We had a bourgeois revolution to overthrow a still semi-feudal monarchy, and we’ve been a bourgeois-run state ever since, just as the bourgeois Founding Fathers intended. Our government was never meant to represent the working class, and it never has.

.

Also, while I wouldn’t call Sanders a socialist either, he is not a centrist by any standard measure.

Sanders is a centrist by the standard measure: the left is socialism; the right is liberalism. He’s center-left at best. He wants to preserve the bourgeois order while providing a better safety net to the proletariat. He is in no way on the left, and he has a history of supporting US imperialism.

The Overton window in the US is so far to the right that most Americans wouldn’t know the left if it bit them.

I understand very well what liberalism and socialism are, thanks. Where we disagree is the definition of the "left" versus the "right". Even in Europe, the old socialist left is becoming a thing of a bygone age, so of course the Overton window shifts to reflect the current political landscape.

NO

I reject the label because it's meaningless. I'm a Marxist-Leninist who has nothing to do with the USSR and frankly does not have an opinion on what happened in Hungary because I don't know enough about the specific event. I acknowledge that Soviet Russia, like all countries, had positives and negatives. I believe that socialism can only be achieved and maintained using centralized planning and authority (which is the not same as a dictatorship) because they exist in a world dominated by capitalist forces that want to see them destroyed (see the ongoing US sanctions on Cuba and the many budding socialist governments the US has toppled).

As a citizen of the United States, I also recognize that my country very frequently lies about its own actions and their justifications (see the Iraq War) to the detriment of people in other countries. Frequently to protect the interests of capital. Thus, I express skepticism when my government tries to tell me that another country is unilaterally 'bad', as is constantly the case with places like China, which I've visited several times and study academically. So when other countries take action to separate themselves from us, get out from under historical US domination, and practice an economic and social system that is not US-style liberal democracy, I applaud their successes and try to understand their failures. This is true even if those success harm me, usually economically, as I do not want my existence to be predicated on the suffering of others.

To anyone on .world, which is obnoxiously in line with the United States status quo, I am a 'tankie' because I do not believe that China is evil, that Russians are 'orcs', that the Cuban people deserve to be starved by our sanctions, that Joe Biden has to support Palestinian genocide and continue Trump's border policy because 'its complicated', and anything else that is critical of my own country and its actions that continue to harm people not as fortunate to be born in my same geographical location.

I will also be accused of 'whataboutism' for this post unless I also say something like modern Russia is a capitalist hellscape and that the Cultural Revolution and most of Mao's later career after the Jiangxi Soviet was a mistake due his own incompetence as a large-scale political leader instead of a guerilla fighter. But that's a level of nuance the people crying 'tankie' won't usually care about anyway.

Fantastic comment that speaks to so many of the contradictions of the current political line in the west. This one goes in my special little tankie book that I read at night under the covers

To anyone on .world, which is obnoxiously in line with the United States status quo, I am a 'tankie' because I do not believe that China is evil, that Russians are 'orcs', that the Cuban people deserve to be starved by our sanctions, that Joe Biden has to support Palestinian genocide and continue Trump's border policy because 'its complicated', and anything else that is critical of my own country and its actions that continue to harm people not as fortunate to be born in my same geographical location.

I wouldn't call you a tankie for that. The closest thing may be the Russian orc thing, but that is more a statement that Russians are still human while fighting an immoral war.

That the Cuban sanctions are still going on are stupid and support for Palestine is consistent with general leftist theory regarding freedom.

on the one hand: there is no such thing as a tankie, the word doesn't mean anything besides "person to the left of me whom i disagree with"

on the other hand: hell yeah i'm a tankie

Death to America

I am to the left of Ronald Reagan. A lot of people would classify that as tankie.

But that’s not a no.

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Tankie Party?

I’ll take that as a yes for you. If you are a Tankie you should stand up for your values and be proud!

The only reason why you would deny it or hide it is if you have an agenda.

Tankie is a floating signifier, a pejorative, a thought-terminating cliché, a rhetorical cudgel.

The only reason why you would deny it or hide it is if you have an agenda.

Or because it’s a thought-terminating pejorative. And in any case, just as it is impossible to be unbiased, it is impossible to be agendaless. By implying that I have some secret agenda, you’re doubling down on McCarthyism.

If that’s how you feel about it, then it may be a cudgel against you. But I am certain you do see and have seen people who proudly self label as tankies.

Nothing wrong with that.

A ridiculous question. "Tankie" isn't a term anyone self-identifies with, it's mostly a term used by liberals to hurl at anyone to the left of them or anyone who agrees with western foreign policy. The survey results will be as meaningless as the term "tankie" itself.

Maybe?

What the heck is a tankie, anyways? Every person I have asked has had a different answer, and the vast majority of these definitions don't really fit any major communities on Lemmy, not even Hexbear or Lemmygrad.

I have been called a tankie for numerous reasons, like saying that people should read Marx, to saying the US is a net negative on global stability.

Is being a Marxist sufficient for being a tankie? What about a Marxist-Leninist? Are only Dengists tankies? Is Anarchism the only non-tankie leftist position? I've even seen Anarchists be called tankies over on Lemmy.world, which is currently undergoing Red Scare-era anti-leftist witch hunts (like return2ozma's recent ban for "bad-faith spam").

I think this question needs a definition first. If you ask 10 different people what a "tankie" is, you'll get 11 different answers.

This is the crux of it: where once there was some kind of definition, now it's just a snarl word for "leftist who makes points I can't refute."

Yep, it's Lemmy's Red Scare.

I am curious if there is going to be a schizm between .world aligned instances and Hexbear/grad/.ml aligned instances, where .world sees an eventual gradual exodus of leftists as they recieve a steady influx of liberals from Reddit.

Lemmy's own multipolar world.

I just don't see the point of using lemmy unless they're a leftist in the first place.

Reddit already exists, and has a much bigger userbase that's already pro-US and heavily anti-communist.

If it's just because reddit took away the app treats, that's kind of a sad reason to use an explicitly anti-corporate software, but I'm sure there's a chunk of ppl on lemmy don't think much past that.

Let's analyze it.

Reddit is declining in a way liberals can't deny. The more ideological among these liberals attempt to leave, but without theory, without knowledge of Marxism, or even Anarchism, without a firm understanding of Historical and Dialectical Materialism, their world view is framed in a manner that casts Capitalism as bad, in an almost Ultraleftist manner, but Red Scare propaganda still makes Marxism spooky.

They occupy a space that considers Capitalist countries with pure nuance and critical support, but only judge leftist movements as though they are Ultras, and nothing is satisfactory.

From there, Liberals seek a replacement, and further still they don't quite accept federation, so they go to the largest generalist instance. This is Lemmy.world, so they get to have a space filled with ex-redditors kicked out by Capitalism's failings, but unwilling to embrace any actual alternative, occupying a weird middle ground.

Therefore, Lemmy.world appeals to radical, theoryless liberals, with no specific or niche interests, and creates an echo-chamber around that specific anti-specificity.

Just my 2 cents.

Dialectically, I believe eventually .world will defed from .ml, or vice-versa, from some unimportant inciting incident, creating a multi-polar Lemmy, so to speak, but that's a bit odd to say directly to you. Either way, I see a contradiction that appears to be growing, so Dialectically there will likely be a shift from the quantitative to qualitative, so to speak.

That makes sense. lemmy.ml won't be the one to defed from any of the larger servers, because we want to promote an interconnected fediverse, even if it does mean a lot of cross interaction and potential fights between pro and anti-communists.

Other servers are free to defederate if they wish, obvi its up to a server-owner to run their server how they see best. Even if there's more rifts in the fediverse, I'm not too worried... the long-term trend though will be towards instances that connect with the most people, and don't shut themselves out.

I agree with promoting inter-connectedness, I am on Lemmy.ml as opposed to grad or hexbear precisely because I believe in fostering that connection. I do think it's more likely .world defeds, but currently they want to maintain that same vision of interconnectedness. I can see .world putting it to a vote and letting users defed, to save face, eventually.

I agree, if there does become a multi-polar Lemmy, there will be healthier growth from the more open instances.

If there is to be a shift from the quantitative to the qualitative, then I think that—whatever of the proximate cause that breaks the camel’s back—this US election will be the ultimate cause.

That's a good point, and I'm inclined to agree. I hadn't actually put 2 and 2 together there, haha, but it makes a lot of sense.

We will see if the saber rattling actually goes anywhere this time, but it won't be gone for long if it doesn't.

but only judge leftist movements as though they are Ultras

the radlib/ultra/maoist overlaps are a source of fascination for me.

IMO it stems from a reaction to Red Scare Propaganda, a counter to it, combined with Marx himself being thoroughly de-fanged into being "good, but outdated." Marxists are harmless, or even have a few good points, but Capitalism won!

They believe Red Scare Propaganda was purely about Marx himself and not leftist movements, they realize America is Imperialist but also believe their propaganda to be true.

It's a weird and likely unique overlap that will simply no longer exist as time goes on and we move beyond the Red Scare ever further, and Capitalism continues to decline.

Fwiw, a lot of us were ready to leave it anyway. Reddit used to be a place for left-leaning people, though I would guess more of the progressive liberal-relative-to-center variety, due to it being started from within the USA (I joined it quite late so not totally sure).

Its downhill slide was long and convoluted and not evenly distributed across all subs. There were pockets of resistance, and probably some niche communities remain even now that are halfway tolerable. Anything worth doing takes real effort to build, and some people have put in those efforts and held on tenaciously. And, to be very clear, morally as well: e.g. places that try to reach the maximum audience possible to combat misinformation, or suicidal or similar behaviors - those places NEED to be on Reddit, yes and even Twitter/X, and 🤮 Facebook too, to achieve their aims of maximal outreach (at which point they could do dual duty to funnel people to the real places too:-).

For those of us that want deeper discourse, Reddit was not meeting that need, but Lemmy/Mbin very much does:-). Btw fascinating related article: https://medium.com/@max.p.schlienger/the-cargo-cult-of-the-ennui-engine-890c541cebcb.

So that's one category of people, and another is the set of those who just needed to be awakened in order to realize what was going on. Maybe they were busy with children irl or some such and didn't notice Reddit's slide. I am glad that we can provide a home to them as well - it enriches us all to have more people here (mostly).

Idk. I'm really bad at history and such cause I never pay attention. I used to take everything I saw on the internet at face value, so I decided to slow down on current news. Doesn't help that I like programming and video games a lot, so I don't spend a lot of time thinking about world events.

I just like communities that are tolerant and won't let people bully the lgbt or the disabled. It feels less tiring.

Believe it or not, some people would call you a tankie for that.

I never got called a tankie, so idk about that.

Then again, I rarely participate in political discussions that I don't know about. I try to read as much as possible to get an idea, but I never go in dept, like read sources.

I'm going to go to uni soon. I'll try to spend more time into learning history properly.

Then again, I rarely participate in political discussions that I don't know about.

If only more people thought or behaved this way. You're on the right track then. For me my first foray into serious geo-politics was when I wrote a paper on Iran-Contra for a sociology course which also led me to diving into the history of Iran's conflicts with the west, and from there I started trying to unravel the confusing mess that western sources try to make Palestine seem like, only to finally come to the (correct) conclusion that the only answer to any of these problems is for the US and all it's colonial projects be dismantled as soon as possible.

Then when gamergate happened and a whole new generations of kids started getting radicalized by mask off fascists I came to another (also correct) conclusion: The only people truly ready and willing to fight fascists were anarchists and communists and that's how I ended up on the old Chapo subreddit and then here.

The folks around here are extremely knowledgeable and you will learn a hell of a lot through osmosis but eventually you'll want to read some of this stuff yourself. In addition to what @Dessalines@lemmy.ml gave you I also recommend Kropotkin's Mutual Aid A Factor Of Evolution which is not Marxist per se, but a great refutation of the "muh human nature means communism doesn't work" thought terminating cliche.

Finally I would recommend bumping State and Revolution up the que in that list just because it is such a fuckin banger and isn't long. The opening passage roped me right in:

What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now “Marxists” (don’t laugh!). And more and more frequently German bourgeois scholars, only yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Marxism, are speaking of the “national-German” Marx, who, they claim, educated the labor unions which are so splendidly organized for the purpose of waging a predatory war!

When I first read that I was like "Oh shit he predicted what happened to MLK Malcolm X and Fred Hampton all the way back in 1917" leo-point

I dont know a lot of things that you're talking about, but I promise I'll read the texts that you mentioned to try to understand 👍

I'm so happy I avoided gamergate because I was too much into splatoon lmao. The community there was really friendly.

oh yeah almost forgot to tell you to check out Marx Madness. They've done full reads of a lot of foundational texts and they offer it up in podcast/book club format where they read and discuss each work. https://podtail.com/en/podcast/marx-madness/

And this here is a collection of introductory works as well as some absolutely essential works on decolonial Marxism assembled by Chunka Luta Network with some free audio books as well. https://mega.nz/folder/cuMwjRyK#eDPayQSdYFwaCh9qr8zzPw

For a good history book I cannot recommend Palo Alto by Malcolm Harris enough. We have the full audiobook on there.

Good!

Let me know if you want some basic Marxist recommendations.

I was thinking of diving head first into das kapital. I'm not sure if 3 courses of philosophy are enough. I was going to ask my philosophy teacher about it, but I'm a bit scared to ask haha.

I would be glad to get some recommendations though.

I def recommend against starting with das kapital, at least until the advanced / intermediate stages. Its a slog, and not really the best introduction.

Here's a Marxism study plan, with a good number of audiobooks / audiobook torrents for them.

You can absolutely do that, but it may be extremely difficult.

I would personally recommend starting with The Principles of Communism and then following it up with How Marxism Works. Then, you can dive into Wage Labor and Capital and Value, Price, and Profit.

With the easy overviews of Marxism as a whole, and the Marxist critique of Capitalism out of the way, I would go to Socialism: Utopian and Scientific for philosophy, and Critique of the Gotha Programme for Marx's vision of what Socialism may look like. Read the Communist Manifesto now, where you have the background knowledge to fully understand the text and appreciate its fire.

Optionally, add Lenin here. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism explains how Capitalism has grown since Marx, using ideas laid out by Marx but not fully observable until Lenin. I would say this is actually the most important work for understanding Modern Capitalism, but since it builds on Marx, it's important to read this one after Marx. The State and Revolution is Lenin's other major work, and it goes over the strategy used during the Russian Revolution. Important for historical context, even if you disagree with Lenin here.

All of this combined is, I believe, shorter than 1 full volume of Capital.

Hope that helps!

Thanks a lot for taking your time to send me all of that. It always shocks me how much all of you know so much about several texts and all.

I'll try my best to read through all of this.

Imma be honest chief, I'm just a nerd for Socialism and Communism. That's really it, haha.

Let me know if you have any questions!

No

To clear definitions, at least for me"tankies" are a subset of communists, who praises/defends the actions of all/most communist states far more than similar actions from capitalist states. The difference between communists and tankies is a bias in favor of communist states when looking at things like human rights violations. Very few people will self identify as a tankie, since it's hard to see your own bias.

So Tankies are just Communists sympathetic towards other Communists? What would a non-tankie Communist look like?

Supporting communism's ideas, while still fairly condemning terrible things done by historical attempts at implementing it.

What constitutes "fairly?" Maybe because I am on Lemmy.ml and thus can see Hexbear and Lemmygrad, I don't think I've seen many people genuinely refusing to condemn horrible or tragic events within Communist countries or by Communists. Perhaps a vast minority, but at that point, why is this even an issue in the first place?

Are there examples of "good" Communists that aren't tankies that you can point me to?

I think it's just mostly teen drama from Lemmy.world users. :)

no i am a girl

Are you saying tanks can't be girls?

no but i am not a tank i am a girl

How about a tank girl? anarchista-chad

idk i'm trying to work on embracing a softer, more vulnerable side of myself instead of putting up a more brash, violent exterior as a defense mechanism while oversharing about myself on the internet

NO. Not a fan of the current or former CCP or the former Soviet Union

Tankie is an empty signifier

That is to say, it's a label that can be used to describe an array of different and conflicting ideas, values, and identities. Because of this it serves as an obfuscatory device rather than a communicative one. The sub-logic becomes tankie = bad, so if someone I don't like = tankie, then person I don't like = bad.

Almost none of us were alive when Khrushchev rolled tanks into Hungary. Most MLs aren't particularly fond of Khrushchev.

It's made a resurgence in this new, weird context because most of the terms used during the previous red scares lost their power through similar misuse. It's become unfashionable to hate on leftism in progressive spaces, doing so using old terminology makes you sound like a fox news conservative. But you can do the same thing by calling it this instead.

Almost none of us were alive when Hitler was alive.

You should still have a clear and simple opinion of anything Hitler is known for.

No, I think?

I don't actually know what a "Tankie" is. I tend to try to steer away from labels; I consider them a form of intellectual laziness. People will use them to either try to gain a feeling of belonging by adopting a line of thinking shared by their peers, or they will use them to smear those who they have defined as "others" without consideration of why these "others" might hold opinions that they don't. Labels and label-based thinking lead to tribalism and division.

If you want to know what I think about something, ask with specifics. If you want to convince me of something, present an argument with reason and evidence, and be prepared for me to pick it apart and look for flaws. There is nothing I respect more than somebody who takes a comment I make and considers it, researches it and then comes back to me with a response, or presents me with a perspective that compels me to do the same. I find both depressingly rare.

I always love when people answer my questions with an "I need to do some research", that's how you know you have a valid argument with someone.

Last time I can remember getting that response in an actual conversation was during the NFL kneeling protests. I guy I work with kept repeating how disrespectful it was to kneel, so I asked "Is it disrespectful to God when you kneel in prayer?" You could practically see the hamster fall off the wheel, and he said he needed to speak with his pastor.

NO

I like having no boots on my neck, not just changing out what demographic is wearing it

1 more...

No.

Maybe I'm way off the mark here but... I think the reaction to tankies seems very overblown. No one you could describe as a "tankie" is currently in charge of any of the countries/companies/organizations that are busy destroying the world right now, so I don't super understand why everyone's talking about them like they're at all a priority? The authoritarians that tankies are obsessed with are all either long dead, or totally unaware of their existence.

Maybe some people on the left are just trying to look at future dangers here, like tankies are gonna be "Bolsheviks Part 2", somehow come into power, and then purge all the anarchists or something. But didn't Bolsheviks actually have a lot of power and influence prior to the revolution? Tankies don't seem to.

why everyone’s talking about them like they’re at all a priority?

Because the red scares and the cold war[1][2] never actually ended, and our government, think tanks, and corporate media still feed us a constant drip of spooky stories.

china under the bedUS scaredspecter

...you know, that definitely sounds pretty plausible! Massive wave of fascism happening internationally right now, and we're screaming about these people instead because the red scare was so incredibly effective? That is sadly very believable.

No.

This isn't my standard instance but I do take a look at it sometimes. I'm definitely very far left leaning, I don't have a label that clearly fits me but I'm probably close enough to anarcho-communism or syndicalism. I live in the UK so it's pretty common for my views to fall further left of the USA.

I'm not particularly good at actually adhering to my own views, infact I don't think I've ever done e anything substantial to bringing my ideals into reality. My dream would be for small federated housing / workers co-ops and unions to get a good handle in my area, and then have the stability to grow.

The crucial reason I'm not a tankie is that I actively oppose top down leadership structures, and I'm actually more against authoritarianism than I am against the right, but I feel that in my country, conservatism and authoritarianism are deeply linked, and a bottom up power structure would do more to actively oppose facism and power consolidation than a far left authoritarian regime.

In short, No. My principles may make me a commie, but I'm an anarchist first.

The .world libs just couldn't help themselves but ruin our circlejerk.

Sure fuck it. I'll Tankie. Castro is a hero. Western news knows nothing of glorious DPRK Juche, and comrade Stalin did nothing wrong.

Yes.

NO

When the current government is not doing a very good job at maximizing the happiness of its citizens, it's a natural reaction to look for answers from a different type of government. America has some enormous problems with capitalism as it currently operates, and communism offers solutions to many of those problems. The issue is the top-down power structure. Democracy keeps the most power in the hands of the general population, and i will always oppose giving that up. Beyond that, I'm open to any solutions for modern problems, public or private.

If you oppose top-down structures, then why do you support Capitalism over Communism?

I support democracy and oppose authoritarianism. Capitalism needs better regulations today, but I don't believe that the government controlling all business would lead to anything besides more authoritarianism.

Why? Capitalism can't be democratic.

No it can't because it's not a form of government, it's just an economic system. Communism is both a type of government and an economic system. That means concentrated power.

Capitalism has liberal democracy.

Are you saying that because Workers have absolutely no economic control in Capitalism, it's more democratic than when they do? Are you genuinely making that argument?

I really recommend asking this question on lemmygrad or hexbear, bc you'll get really good in-depth answers about the nature and differences between what's labelled as "democracy" in capitalist countries, vs the reality of whether citizens of a capitalist dictatorship have anything resembling democracy.

American democracy definitely needs to be improved (ranked 36 in the world), but do you think I have less of a voice in the election process than I would under communism?

Ask these questions over on lemmygrad or hexbear, you'll get good answers.

Seriously speaking, YES.

“The modern revisionists and reactionaries call us Tankies, thinking that they insult us and, in fact, that is their aim. On the contrary, however, they glorify us with this epithet: it is an honour for us to be Tankies, because, since we were Tankies, the enemy could not conquer us, and never will conquer us as long as we remain Tankies.”

--Enver Hoxha, paraphrased.

(As far as Hungary is concerned, I don't advocate for anything that Khrushchev did)

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

I havent figured out yet what a tankie is.

The original definition comes the crushing of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 to describe communists who supported the crushing of the uprising.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie

A lot of people who use that term to describe other tankies seem to be using it the correct way while people who are tankies seem to want to change it to something else because of the implications of that definition.

It reminds me a lot of how conservatives will claim nazi or racist or fascist has lost all meaning

it's what people who are literally demanding that the west sends tanks to the proxy war in Ukraine are calling people who want to end the war right now

Tribalists whose ingroup-uber-alles identity is any kind of leftism. The sort of person who would excuse unimaginable cruelty so long as it's done in the name of opposing "the west."

NO

Tankie has been shifting way beyond its original meaning to just be a vague leftward stab, but being an anarchist and everything I don't think it applies to me just yet

It doesn’t. But just like “fascist” has been used as an insult and scaremongering tactic since the late 40s, “tankie” has been used indiscriminately in recent years against anyone people disagree with. But I, like you, am an anarchist, and initially I would only see it in anarchist circles when communists came calling. Because that’s where the insult originated, if I’m not mistaken? Anarchists calling communists statist-leftists, to the point that they’re willing to lie for and defend their preferred states (those that use the communist name without actually being communist. Read: current day russia, china, and yes, even North Korea)

Nobody calls Russia Communist, and nobody believes China is economically fully Socialist, but has a mixed economy.

Ever talked to a tankie?

I’m not saying they’re communist. I’m saying that western e-communists confuse the concept of fighting “western propaganda” with defending everything that runs contrary to it. That means the Russia fearmongering that goes on in a lot of US-based circles must be countered with full throated defense of everything Russia has ever done. Especially under the Soviet Union.

Atrocities under Stalin? western propaganda!

That type of stuff.

I've spoken to a lot of people on Grad and Hexbear, and on .ml as well.

I haven't found many, if any, people confusing fighting western propaganda with defending anything that runs contrary to it. I have seen a lot more expression of nuanced views of the USSR than "100 million dead" memes, sure.

Have you tried properly engaging with these people in good-faith? They more often than not have genuine reasoning behind their beliefs, which helps explain some takes, that isn't just blind support for opponents of western hedgemony.

I have. Unless people come at me swinging, I prefer good, honest, non hostile conversations. But look:

https://feddit.nl/post/16246531

This post mentions exactly what I’m talking about. Being critical of Russia and China—modern day Russia and China, neither of which are communist—is met with pretty swift anger from tankies. I’m not crazy in having had this experience

People on Hexbear, .ml, and Lemmygrad are regularly critical of Russia and China. They critically support them in their efforts against Imperialism along Lenin's definitions, which is basically Hyper-Capitalism, because they believe countries under the thumb of Imperialism cannot become Socialist, and Imperialist countries will not become Socialist until after they lose the countries they extract from.

I dunno what to tell ya. The amount of gross authoritarianism I saw from communists there was more than enough.

Like what?

I don’t have examples that far back. But constantly denying the ongoing Uyghur crisis by calling it “western propaganda,” running cover for the Hong Kong crackdown by saying it was “their territory already so they can do what they want,” denying the Tiananmen square massacre, shit like that.

NO

I've never even been called one erroneously.

You Ain't Been Doing Nothing If You Ain't Been Called A Red

1 more...

NO

Neither do I self-identify as a tankie, I don't think anyone who'd identify themselves as tankies would think of me as one.

I dont think there's anyone worth taking seriously who self identifies as a tankie, thanks being earnest though

YES

At least if we go off the Lemmy definition. I don't self identify.

I don't consider myself a tankie, because I'm an anarcho-syndicalist.

I've been called a tankie for suggesting that workers should organize tenant unions to kill the apartment bidding wars in NYC. I've been called a tankie for pointing out that their image of a tankie needs to almost have power to be any kind of threat worth warning against, and there are no tankies anywhere near power with the global rise of fascism. I've been called a tankie for asking someone to clarify what they meant by tankie. I've been told that scientific socialism both is and is not tankie behavior. The term is utterly meaningless. I've come to the conclusion that it's part of a 3rd red scare in an effort to sow division amongst the anticapitalist left.

No. I had no idea about this instance's reputation when I joined Lemmy but it's nothing like the other instance you mentioned.

It gets very tiring trying to have a conversation with contrarians who think everything Western is bad and anything Chinese/USSR is good. Or worse, that their highly suspicious news sources (some random blog usually) are telling you the real truth, while using any mainstream news media source makes you a deluded Lib

i may or may not have a tanksona, but that doesn't make me a tankie.

Yes. I get called one everytime i defend or advocate for anything left of Bernie Sanders. "

"Communism is the riddle of history solved, and knows itself to be the solution."

Is as true today as it was when Marx wrote it almost 200 years ago.

YES

My understanding is that a tankie is defined as someone who seeks to promote global peace, understanding, and equality, with nuanced views that incorporate marginalized and international perspectives, grounded in historical evidence.

That's how I see it used anyway.

This is a dumb question. That's like asking TERFs if they self-identify as bigots. They're going to respond that no, of course they aren't, they're just gender realists (or gender critical, or whatever).

If Tankie means somewhat supporting what the URSS/China did, then YES.

I'm not communist, I've never read the manifesto but I'm more aligned with their ideals and the materialism philosophy than anything else, and I saw this quote that marked me. I paraphrase: "... the worst communist implementation was still better/on par than the best capitalist country".

The Communist Manifesto was basically a pamphlet written to be understood by mostly uneducated workers... There's not much reason to have never read it at this point, regardless of personal politics.

We're not talking Atlas Shrugged or Das Kapital. It's like 30 pages or something.

There’s not much reason to have never read it at this point, regardless of personal politics.

Well a simple reason is interest, is not my priority.

We’re not talking Atlas Shrugged or Das Kapital.

And I also want to read Capital, but again is not my priority in the near feature.

NO. Communism is interesting, but I'm heavily anti-authoritarian.

That's interesting.... Communism is by definition stateless and without significant hierarchy. I don't think other Tankies would disagree with me there.

The ideological difference is in how we achieve communism. I would really suggest reading 'What is to be Done' by Lenin. It's a real short read but was one of the things that sold me on Marxism-Leninism vs. regular "Communism is a neat idea"

Capitalism will sell you the "you're your own boss, go forth an conquer" all while keeping you under their heel. There is no equality or opportunity there; but even worse is that they will worm their way into any system that does not harshly and consistently fight back against them. Ergo the need for a 'communist' (or rather pursuing communism) state.

That then leads into "Well how does the state go away once we've got communism?" That's a whole 'nother can of worms....

When does Communism become authoritarian? Like, where in the process?

I never said that Communism necessarily becomes authoritarian. But, as someone who has a strong dislike for authoritarianism, I'm not interested in Communism which involves it.

Sure, but I mean at what point, right?

To cut to the chase, I'm asking what specifically separates Tankies from Communists. Where is the line drawn? I see a lot of people (myself included) labeled a tankie for recommending people read Marx, or saying that Lenin was a Marxist, regardless of if you agree with him or not.

At what point would a Communist be considered a tankie?

I thought that the line was that one supports owning the means of production and the other supports authoritarian governments, am I confused?

Socialists support some form of Workers owning the Means of Production, of various types.

Communists are Marxists, that advocate for a specific form of Socialism, a worker state, that will eventually result in a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society.

Tankie has been used to slander all manner of leftists, but the number of people that actually fit the definition of the slander is very small. Many people who do not fit that actual definition are still called a tankie.

The hard part of politics is drawing hard lines. But I think many would say it's authoritarian at the point when a government is enforcing a specific ideology with force and violence, and limiting personal freedoms.

I personally don't understand how someone can be authoritarian and communist when communism is classless, but to be authoritarian there must essentially be an authority in a separate hierarchical class. But I also likely have more to learn so feel free to correct me

I would say by that definition, every system is authoritarian to different degrees, and as such we all just pick whatever degree we are okay with. It's vibes based, not metrics based.

Communism is classless, yes, but Communism must be built, as it is the eventual elimination of contradictions. You may wish to read Critique of the Gotha Programme, where Marx makes a good critique of a bad Socialist program and advocates for a different Socialist method of reaching Communism.

NO, I’m also not from this instance for similar reasons

No.

Tankies are fascist that took the socialist part in national socialist serious.

Well... i wouldn't say i am full authoritarian, but i definitely identify on the left. I have maybe false ideas of tankies, but i just want that the world change without going full revolution, so i would say NO.

but i just want that the world change without going full revolution

Nobody wants a violent and bloody revolution. It is a position we will be forced into as a matter of self defense as we see throughout history.

A great example is Salvatore Allende in Chile and the 1973 CIA backed coup against him. He did everything the proper peaceful democratic socialist way and they still had him murdered because he was not friendly with US business interests in the region.

The fuck is a tankie? Outside of Lemmy, I've never seen nor H6eard the word. I assume it's Lemmy slang for some group of people.

DEPENDS

Probably I'm neither a tankie nor not a tankie, but I like tossing grenades in these sorts of surveys.

neither a tankie nor not a tankie

Bruh. You seem like a negative person... 🙃

Tankie originally referred to authoritarian communists, but over the past couple of years I've seen it referred to, like, anyone significantly to the left of the Democratic Party. Former suck, very much aspire to be part of the latter.

I'm going to work hard to redefine 'Tankie' as someone who cosplays as a Decepticon, just so that political discourse becomes even more intolerably meaningless.

/s I'm not going to do this, it would take effort.

No

Oppression is oppression independent of the ideological basis, people who support oppressive governments based on a loose ideological basis deserve the worse.

NO

I support their natural enemies, anarkiddies shall triumph!

Marxists and Anarchists share 90% of views, they just disagree on the presence of a government. The natural enemies of both Marxists and Anarchists are liberals and fascists.

YES

If wanting to receive basic human rights (food, housing, etc.), attend education without being discriminated against for my income and mental condition, control my workplace, earn the full value of my wages, have a government actually controlled by the people, all while being politically educated in past socialist movements and their theory to achieve all these things, then I'm sure as hell am a tankie, and I don't care what online liberals say.

Stalin rules, by the way. ✊

Why does Stalin "rule"? This is a question from a fellow "leftist."

Either ignorant, or you're just a really bad person. Just such a stupid fucking thing to say. Take a step back from the Internet and read a book. Saying "Stalin rules ✊" doesn't make you cool, it just makes you look like an idiot.

Stalin was a paranoid, murderous dictator responsible for the unnecessary deaths of countless millions of people. Or does it not count because he didn't murder them himself?

Can't wait to hear about how the holomodor wasn't his fault...

8 more...

No I do not identify as a Bradley APC tank

No

On economic policy I am quite far left - I support a low Gini coefficient, achieved through a mixed economy, but with state provided options (with no 'think of the businesses' pricing strategy) for the essentials and state owned options for natural monopolies / utilities / media.

But on social policy, I support social liberties and democracy. I believe the government should intervene, with force if needed, to protect the rights of others from interference by others (including rights to bodily safety and autonomy, not to be discriminated against, the right to a clean and healthy environment, and the right not to be exploited or misled by profiteers) and to redistribute wealth from those with a surplus to those in need / to fund the legitimate functions of the state. Outside of that, people should have social and political liberties.

I consider being a 'tankie' to require both the leftist aspect (✅) and the authoritarian aspect (❌), so I don't meet the definition.

"Mixed economy" and "far left" don't go together, unless you are using that as a platform to achieve a fully Socialist economy in the future.

No.

I assume "tankie" is a roundabout way to lump revolutionary leftists with those fomenting red-brown alliances. That is, a "tankie" in the modern day is a way to describe someone as Strasserist, NazBol, LaRouchite, etc.

No. Not a tankie. It would be nice if autocorrect let me type tankie and not talkie. I had to cut and paste it I'm not proud.

No, then yes, then no again.

Long story, won't explain, I don't remember many details since it's been years since I cared about any of this stuff; other than "Gonzalo did nothing wrong, there is no AES, CCP and Russia lost their way due to Deng in China and the assassination of Lenin in Russia blah blah I'm an ultra or maoist or something blah blah".

Open source movement is the only thing I care about now.

Not one of my pronouns. Never been in a tank. I don't even own a tank top. It sounds like a sophomoric pejorative neologism. Why would I adopt such a label? No.

No.

Granted, I'm not on lemmy.ml either.

Maybe just yes or no isn't enough either. Maybe have someone post a picture of tanks in tienniemen square to prove they aren't a tanker.

My understanding is that tankies believe that groups that have partially or completely followed far-left principles should be exempt from all criticism. I disagree. As long as it is honest criticism, it should not only be allowed but encouraged.

I've also heard that tankies are historic revisionists to an extreme. While I agree Western history is not telling us the real version of things, I don't think other countries are either. I won't say that an event happened one way or the other just because country A or country B says so. If historians and other experts are still debating an event and its details, I prefer to watch from a distance as I have no way to contribute to those debates.

So... no.

No I'm not. Unfortunately one of the problems with tankies is they don't call themselves that most of the time. But I can confidently claim I'm not because when a fellow leftist disagrees with me on 5% of something, I gently explain why I believe what I do, and then proceed to not be mad if the petty difference continues.

for the purposes of this survey, Dippy is 100% a tankie. Read it in their own words:

Unfortunately one of the problems with tankies is they don’t call themselves that most of the time.

No I’m not [a tankie].

Dippy's a tankie, you heard it here first. This person loves crushing people with tanks. This person is an authoritarian monster that crushes people with tanks. Dippy's actually the tank driver in the tank man photo. Don't look up the video, Dippy 100% crushed that dude. Any video showing tankman walk away is an AI fabrication.

It's 103% true. I crushed the man after interrogating his politics and finding thar we disagreed 6.7% politically. Beyond petty, solidly into incompatible range, it had to be done.

Nope, I'm for social democracy and think a healthy government is a balance between left and right. This balance has been lost lately.

I do believe that the discourse need some more leftism, however not of the stalinist (or Marxist-Leninist as people call it) kind.

Why does there need to be a balance of left and right to be healthy? Why do you believe this balance has been lost, if it's healthier to have it?

I'm looking towards the violent shifting of power and ideology after the French Revolution. Its people coming to power through struggle, wreaking revenge on the other side of the Isle and then the balance of power shifting again, with the same violent results.

Unchecked power isn't pretty. There need to be balance. However the discourse is creeping to the right almost everywhere and that fudges a lot up.

Revolution is a response to current society failing. Revolution doesn't happen because random people do it spontaneously, but is a result of declining material conditions.

Unchecked power may not be pretty, but I fail to see what that has to do with left vs right. It seems to me that retaining Capitalist hedgemony for the sake of "balance" is just idealism.

Well in a well balanced system the industry and high captial woudn't have the most influence on politics. Redistribution of wealth can be archieved without bloodshed.

In my opinion that is, I don't think capitalist he d gemony is evil per se, only if it's allowed to run rampant, which it does without proper checks and blances.

Having Capitalism at all means you have outsized influence on the state from Capitalists.

Capitalist hedgemony is evil because it necessarily grows and decays like a cancer, resulting in Imperialism, hyper-exploitation, and power consolidation in fewer and fewer hands. You cannot check it.

I didn't think we would see eye to eye, but I wish to do so amically.

Thanks for the discussion!

(btw it's hegemony, without the d. No hedgefunds in there)

Tbf, there's no "right" anymore in the USA - it got eaten up, vomited back out, re-eaten again, with that process repeated a few times, and is now known as the "Alt-Right", before being subsequently rebranded yet again as "Q".

In other words, the old "GOP" (e.g. Mitch McConnell) is virtually dead at this point, or at least barely hanging on by the slimmest of threads, while now long live the "GQP", that is an entirely different beast.

And I think I am hearing similarly of the UK as well, with Brexit?

So if you meant that we need a healthy balance of diverse viewpoints, then I am 100% with you, but if you mean that we need to pollute true scientific facts with the craziest batshit insanity that anyone has ever heard of, then not so much:-). Diversity among viable solutions = good, whereas a literal Civil War b/c the "right" is throwing a temper tantrum = not so much. Even/especially the very people in charge... they are so scared of what is happening, the dissolution of a nation right before all of our eyes, and on their watch too.

NO

I'm pro-socialism and heavily regulated capitalism.

All that far left Marxist Communist crap is for people who like to pretend that it doesn't fail every single time.

You cannot be pro-Socialism and pro-Capitalism at the same time, unless you are purely using Capitalism temporarily.

What part of Marxism "fails every single time?" Is this just vibes?